Mortality prediction after transcatheter treatment of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves utilizing various international scoring systems: Insights from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID)
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, pozorovací studie
PubMed
30079597
DOI
10.1002/ccd.27714
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- aortic valve disease, structural heart disease intervention, surgery-aortic, surgery-valvular, transcatheter valve implantation, valve-in-valve,
- MeSH
- aortální chlopeň patofyziologie chirurgie MeSH
- bioprotézy * MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- chirurgická náhrada chlopně škodlivé účinky přístrojové vybavení mortalita MeSH
- hodnocení rizik MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- metody pro podporu rozhodování * MeSH
- prediktivní hodnota testů MeSH
- protézy - design MeSH
- registrace MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- selhání protézy * MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- srdeční chlopně umělé * MeSH
- transkatetrální implantace aortální chlopně škodlivé účinky přístrojové vybavení mortalita MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- pozorovací studie MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is commonly used to deploy new bioprosthetic valves inside degenerated surgically implanted aortic valves in high risk patients. The three scoring systems used to assess risk of postprocedural mortality are: Logistic EuroSCORE (LES), EuroSCORE II (ES II), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of LES, ES II, and STS in estimating all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantations, which was not assessed before. METHODS: Using the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry, a total of 1,550 patients from 110 centers were included. The study compared the observed 30-day overall mortality vs. the respective predicted mortalities calculated by risk scores. The accuracy of prediction models was assessed based on calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Observed mortality at 30 days was 5.3%, while average expected mortalities by LES, ES II and STS were 29.49 (± 17.2), 14.59 (± 8.6), and 9.61 (± 8.51), respectively. All three risk scores overestimated 30-day mortality with ratios of 0.176 (95% CI 0.138-0.214), 0.342 (95% CI 0.264-0.419), and 0.536 (95% CI 0.421-0.651), respectively. 30-day mortality ROC curves demonstrated that ES II had the largest AUC at 0.722, followed by STS at 0.704, and LES at 0.698. CONCLUSIONS: All three scores overestimated mortality at 30 days with ES II showing the highest predictability compared to LES and STS; and therefore, should be recommended for ViV procedures. There is a need for a dedicated scoring system for patients undergoing ViV interventions.
3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana Pisa Italy
Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia Vila Nova de Gaia Portugal
Clinique Pasteur Toulouse France
Escola Paulista de Medicina UNIFESP São Paulo Brazil
Ferrarotto Hospital Catania Italy
Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota
Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark
Royal Brompton Hospital London United Kingdom
Segeberger Kliniken Bad Segeberg Germany
St Paul's Hospital Vancouver Canada
Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford California
Sunninghill Hospital Johannesburg Republic of South Africa
Sunnybrook Hospital Toronto Canada
The Alfred Hospital Melbourne Australia
University Hospital Heidelberg Heidelberg Germany
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
